Literature DB >> 9560406

Genetic basis of response to 50 generations of selection on body weight in inbred mice.

P D Keightley1.   

Abstract

A long-established inbred strain of mice was divergently selected for body weight for 50 generations. Selection of new mutations affecting the trait eventually led to a divergence of approximately three phenotypic standard deviations between the high and low lines. Heritability for body weight increased at a rate between 0.23% and 0.57% per generation from new mutations, depending on the genetic model assumed. About two-thirds of the selection response was in the upward direction. The response was episodic, suggesting a substantial contribution from the selection of mutations with large effects on the trait. A maximum likelihood procedure was used to estimate the number of factors contributing to the response using data from line crosses, with models of n equivalent gene effects (i.e., to estimate the Wright-Castle index), or n genes with variable effects. The results of the analysis of data from a cross between the selected high line and an unselected control line indicated that two major factors were involved, with the suggestion of an additional minor factor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9560406      PMCID: PMC1460090     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  23 in total

1.  How informative is Wright's estimator of the number of genes affecting a quantitative character?

Authors:  Z B Zeng; D Houle; C C Cockerham
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  The response to artificial selection from new mutations in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  A Caballero; M A Toro; C López-Fanjul
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 3.  Comparing mutational variabilities.

Authors:  D Houle; B Morikawa; M Lynch
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Modifications in estimating the number of genes for a quantitative character.

Authors:  C C Cockerham
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Major locus analysis for quantitative traits.

Authors:  R C Elston
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Evidence for a major gene for rapid postweaning growth in mice.

Authors:  G E Bradford; T R Famula
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  Efficiency and robustness of pedigree segregation analysis.

Authors:  R C Go; R C Elston; E B Kaplan
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Rates of change in quantitative traits from fixation of new mutations.

Authors:  W G Hill
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The minimum number of genes contributing to quantitative variation between and within populations.

Authors:  R Lande
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1981 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  The limits to artificial selection for body weight in the mouse. II. The genetic nature of the limits.

Authors:  R C Roberts
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1966-12       Impact factor: 1.588

View more
  12 in total

1.  Flowering time in maize: linkage and epistasis at a major effect locus.

Authors:  Eléonore Durand; Sophie Bouchet; Pascal Bertin; Adrienne Ressayre; Philippe Jamin; Alain Charcosset; Christine Dillmann; Maud I Tenaillon
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent.

Authors:  Laurence Loewe; William G Hill
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Polymorphic genes of major effect: consequences for variation, selection and evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Authors:  John R Stinchcombe; Cynthia Weinig; Katy D Heath; Marcus T Brock; Johanna Schmitt
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Within-generation mutation variance for litter size in inbred mice.

Authors:  Joaquim Casellas; Juan F Medrano
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-07-27       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Development of a highly fecund inbred strain of mice.

Authors:  Marte Holt; Frank W Nicholas; John W James; Chris Moran; Ian C A Martin
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.957

6.  Is Continued Genetic Improvement of Livestock Sustainable?

Authors:  William G Hill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  The number of mutations selected during adaptation in a laboratory population of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  Clifford Zeyl
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-03-02       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 8.  Promises and limitations of hitchhiking mapping.

Authors:  Sergey V Nuzhdin; Thomas L Turner
Journal:  Curr Opin Genet Dev       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 5.578

9.  Spontaneous mutational variation for body size in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  Ricardo B R Azevedo; Peter D Keightley; Camilla Laurén-Määttä; Larissa L Vassilieva; Michael Lynch; Armand M Leroi
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Standing variation and new mutations both contribute to a fast response to selection for flowering time in maize inbreds.

Authors:  Eléonore Durand; Maud I Tenaillon; Céline Ridel; Denis Coubriche; Philippe Jamin; Sophie Jouanne; Adrienne Ressayre; Alain Charcosset; Christine Dillmann
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 3.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.